Education – Student largely prevails on IDEA appeal

Where a hearing officer largely ruled in favor of a student on her claims under the  Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the court affirmed the majority of the hearing officer’s decisions.

Background

Richmond School District, or RCD, filed a four-count complaint, challenging the results of a due process hearing conducted under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA. RPS has filed a motion for judgment on the administrative record while V.B. has filed a motion to dismiss and countersuit for sanctions, damages and ethical violations.

Relief

The hearing officer (1) referred V.B. “to an [independent] eligibility team to determine if she was eligible for special education services based on existing data” and (2) ordered that, if RPS did not receive results from that independent evaluation within a specified time frame, RPS would conduct this evaluation itself.

RPS asserts that it has “a statutory right to conduct its own evaluation of a student before finding a student eligible under the IDEA.” The plain language of the IDEA supports this interpretation. The case law cited by RPS confirms the court’s interpretation of the IDEA.

In sum, the hearing officer improperly ordered V.B. to undergo independent evaluations to determine her eligibility for special education services. RPS is entitled to conduct those evaluations first and need not rely solely on existing data in doing so. The court will therefore grant RPS’ motion with respect to Count One.

Protection

RPS next asserted that the hearing officer incorrectly concluded that RPS failed to provide V.B. with the protections she was owed under the IDEA. The court disagrees.

RPS properly conducted a Manifestation Determination Review, or MDR, after V.B. was suspended for striking her teacher in February 2024. But the hearing officer concluded that RPS failed to provide V.B. with the protections of the IDEA because RPS (1) had knowledge that V.B. was a child with a disability prior to her February 2024 suspension and (2) had made a decision to change V.B.’s placement prior to that same suspension.

Because both conditions requiring an MDR were met, and because RPS failed to conduct such an MDR before February 2024, the hearing officer properly determined that RPS failed to provide V.B. with the protections of the IDEA.

Conduct

RPS also challenged the hearing officer’s decision that V.B.’s conduct in striking her teacher on Feb. 28, 2024, was a manifestation of her disability. In making this determination, the hearing officer discounted the results of the March 1, 2024, MDR, which determined that V.B.’s conduct was not a manifestation of her disability.

But the hearing officer’s decision was entirely explicable. She conducted a proper hearing, allowing parent and RPS to present evidence and make arguments and then resolving the factual questions in the normal way, without flipping a coin, throwing a dart or otherwise abdicating her responsibility to decide the case. Because this determination was regularly made, the court denied RPS’ motion with respect to Count Three.

Child find obligations

The hearing officer concluded that RPS failed to refer V.B. to Child Study in a timely fashion. According to RPS, the hearing officer’s finding with respect to RPS’ referral was not “regularly made” because (1) the hearing officer failed to defer to RPS’ credible expert testimony and (2) the hearing officer improperly relied on records not admitted into evidence.

The court disagrees. The hearing officer properly weighed expert testimony such that her decision was regularly made. And the hearing officer’s reliance on records not admitted into evidence did not render her decision irregularly made.

Defendant’s motion

Because both RPS’ motion for judgment on the administrative record and V.B.’s pro se motion to dismiss seek the court’s ruling on RPS’ complaint, the court liberally construes the motion to dismiss as a response to RPS’ motion. Even doing so, V.B. fails to alter the court’s conclusions with respect to RPS’ motion.

Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the administrative record granted in part, denied in part. Defendant’s motion to dismiss and countersuit for sanctions, damages and ethical violations denied.

Richmond City School Board v. V.B., Case No. 3:24-cv-698, April 20, 2026. EDVA at Richmond (Lauck). VLW 026-3-188. 39 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-3-188
Virginia Lawyers Weekly